RAYMOND WILSON, Monmouth County Correctional Institution, Freehold, NJ, Plaintiff Pro Se.
PETER G. SHERIDAN, District Judge.
Raymond Wilson, who is incarcerated at Monmouth County Correctional Institution, seeks to file a Complaint without prepayment of the filing fee. This Court will grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis.  For the reasons expressed in this Opinion and, as required by 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), this Court will dismiss the federal claims raised in the Complaint without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims arising under state law.
Wilson brings this Complaint against Correctional Care Solution and Monmouth County Jail. He asserts the following allegations.
Dec. 9. I requested to see a Dr. After a time a nurse show[ed] up with a wheel chair. I told him I had blood in my pants. He told me it was nothing but hem[orrho]ids. His 20 years experience an[d] he know[s]. About 3 hours later I needed ten blood transfusion[s] and two major operation[s]. Nurses aren[']t qualified by law. It[']s the D[octor's] job.
(Compl., ECF No. 1 at 7.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Per the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, §§ 801-810, 110 Stat. 1321-66 to 1321-77 (April 26, 1996) ("PLRA"), district courts must review complaints in those civil actions in which a prisoner is proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), seeks redress against a governmental employee or entity, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), or brings a claim with respect to prison conditions, see 28 U.S.C. § 1997e. The PLRA directs district courts to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. This action is subject to sua sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.
"[A] pleading that offers labels or conclusions' or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To survive sua sponte screening for failure to state a claim, the complaint must allege "sufficient factual matter" to show that the claim is facially plausible. Fowler v. UPMS Shadyside , 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Belmont v. MB Inv. Partners, Inc. , 708 F.3d 470, 483 n.17 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678). Moreover, while pro se pleadings are liberally construed, " pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim." Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc. , 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Mansfield, C. & L. M. Ry. Co. v. Swan , 111 U.S. 379, 383 (1884). "[T]hey have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto." Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist. , 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986).
A. Federal Claims
Section 1983 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides ...